[h2o-discuss] FW: PATNEWS: Clinton/Blair to stop gene patents; Rifkin goes after seed corps

[John Wilbanks <wilbanks@cyber.law.harvard.edu>]

An interesting story that doesn't even seem to be on the radar screens here
yet.  It certainly won't help the stock prices of biotech companies using
patented genes as part their business model...is this the first significant
step against the patent madness in the software/biotech world?  Or a hiccup?

-----Original Message-----
From: patent-news-approval@world.std.com
[mailto:patent-news-approval@world.std.com]On Behalf Of
srctran@world.std.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 3:28 AM
To: patent-news@world.std.com
Subject: PATNEWS: Clinton/Blair to stop gene patents; Rifkin goes after
seed corps


!19990920  Clinton/Blair to stop gene patents; Rifkin goes after seed corps

    --  Blair(UK) and Clinton(US) push to stop gene patents
    --  Rifkin to file antitrust suit against seed companies?
    --  Monsanto to abandon genetically modified seed studies in the UK?
    --  South Africa to get cheap AIDS drugs, despite US pressure
    --  Kansas teachers fight anti-evolution idiocy

    A bunch of biotech patent news stories from around the world.  It is
interesting that biotechnology companies are suffering setbanks in their
plans overseas, without the foreign concerns sparking any interest here
in the United States.  It is also interesting that some of these stories
aren't getting much press here in the US.


Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service

                              ====================

    --  BLAIR(UK) AND CLINTON(US) PUSH TO STOP GENE PATENTS

David Hencke, Rob Evans and Tim Radford 
The Guardian, London
Monday September 20, 1999 

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are negotiating an Anglo-American agreement
to protect the 100,000 genes that control the human body and provide the 
catalysts for medical advance. 

The extraordinary deal - initiated by Mr Blair - aims to prevent 
entrepreneurs profiting from gene patents and to ensure that the benefits
of research are freely available worldwide to combat or even eliminate 
diseases. The two leaders decided to act after an acceleration in the pace 
of discovery of the make-up of the human body. In 1997, 8,000 genes had been

mapped; by 2003, the body's entire 100,000 genes will have been mapped. 

The deal aims to ensure that world's largest medical charity, the 
British-owned Wellcome Trust, and the US government owned National Institute

of Health, publicise genes within 24 hours of their discovery - so that the 
benefits accrue entirely to the public. Research bodies, universities or 
laboratories, would be obliged to waive their rights to patent their work
in the public interest. 

To get the deal Mr Blair, through his science envoy, Lord Sainsbury, pressed

the US government to scrap an agreement with an American entrepreneur 
scientist, Craig Venter, who set up his own company, Celera in Maryland,
to patent as many human genes as possible. 

As revealed in the Guardian last year, Dr Venter believed that he had 
developed a method to map the whole gene make-up before the international 
venture could do so - thus enabling him to patent the information. To 
protect his investment he tried to get a deal with the US Department of 
Energy, which the Wellcome Trust warned would inhibit development of drugs 
since companies would have to buy a licence to use a Venter gene. 

Documents released to the Guardian under the US Freedom of Information law 
show there have been discussions between Lord Sainsbury and Neal Lane, Bill 
Clinton's science and technology adviser, to turn what is known as the 
Bermuda accord - an informal agreement to release all research on human 
genes without claiming patents - into a full inter-governmental agreement. 
The two talked in Kyoto in Japan and Williamsburg in the US during the 
Carnegie group summits of G8 science ministers. 

One e-mail by Mr Lane to a colleague in Washington last December says:
"Tony Blair might approach the potus [Bill Clinton] about having a written 
agreement on cooperation re the human genome project. Lord Sainsbury is 
handling this matter for the PM. Harold Varmus [director of the US national 
institute of health] feels an agreement is not really needed but has no 
objection to having one if it is felt to be important." 

Another e-mail discloses talks this year with Ari Patrinos, head of the 
human genome project at the US department of energy, on how to draw up the 
Anglo-American agreement. 

The e-mail discloses that, before the talks, the Department of Energy 
withdrew its agreement with Celera and put up proposals to incorporate the 
company in a joint US-UK agreement. Officials are worried it may not agree, 
but the e-mail ends: "Bottom line is that, although [the energy department] 
did have an earlier agreement with Celera, they have since withdrawn it and 
are working with [the US health institute] and the Wellcome Trust as 
group on any future industry agreements." 

The Department of Trade and Industry said yesterday: "The US has proposed an

inter-government agreement on the human genome project. We are currently 
negotiating."  The Wellcome Trust said it was keen on a deal that would 
develop the Bermuda accord. 
  
(c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 1999 
 
                              ====================

    --  RIFKIN TO FILE ANTITRUST SUIT AGAINST SEED COMPANIES?

    Newswires also report that Jeremy Rifkin has retained the Washington
DC law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll (which recently forced Swiss
banks to pay $1.25 to Holocaust survivors) to see if there are grounds to
file an antitrust lawsuit against large multinational seed companies (such
as Monsanto, Novartis and Pioneer HiBred).  Rifkin seeks to find a way to
challenge in state, federal or foreign courts restrictions that prevent
farmers from keeping seeds from genetically modified patented plants for
future use.  He might want to consider filing suit to prevent such companies
from controlling seed distributorships.

                              ====================

    --  MONSANTO TO ABANDON GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEED STUDIES IN THE UK?

    In a story that appeared in the Sunday London Independent on 5 Sept
1999,
top executives of Monsanto are pressing the board of directors to pull out
of genetically modified crop trials in Britain, because hostility is
damaging its business.  Senior managers are frustrated by the success of
anti-GM campaigners in disrupting the experiments.

    Monsanto shares have follow by more than 10 percent over the past six
months, and other biotechnology companies have suffered as well.  A story
in the 14 Sept 1999 Investors Business Daily reports on how US farmers are
suffering from Europe's hostility to GM foods.  For example, 35% of the
US corn crop and 55% of the soybean crop is genetically modified, and are
heavily exported to Europe.  If Europe says no to GM plant foods, the
profits US farmers depend on will fall (and all the affliated sectors
such as farm equipment suppliers).  The importance of these exports is
such that, for example, the Clinton administration is pressuring UK
ministers to allow a new GM maize developed by Monsanto into UK shops
and supermarkets.

                              ====================

    --  SOUTH AFRICA TO GET CHEAP AIDS DRUGS, DESPITE US PRESSURE

    Newswires report that South Africa and the United States have ended
their trade dispute over AIDS drugs.  South Africa, in late 1997, had 
passed a law allowing parallel importing of AIDS drugs, as well as
compulsory licensing of AIDS drugs.  South Africa, like much of Africa, is
suffering horrendously from AIDS, and many of its citizens can't afford 
the high priced AIDS cocktails that have proven to be effective.
    Multinational pharmaceuticals fought back with lawsuits, cashing in
some of the chits for their campaign donations by getting US trade
officials to pressure South Africa to repeal the law, which might have
worked had not US AIDS activists started dogging Vice President Gore at
his campaign stops with chants such as "Gore's greed kills".
    The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that the two countries have
resolved the issue, apparently mostly on South Africa's terms, but with
South Africa agreeing to respect the patent protected drugs.  Since this
still seems a contradiction, I wouldn't mind hearing from someone who
knows if this is anything more than a pretend agreement.

                              ====================

    --  KANSAS TEACHERS FIGHT ANTI-EVOLUTION IDIOCY

    Newswires this week report that K-12 biology teachers in Kansas are
publicly vowing to continue to teach, if not emphasize, evolution, despite
the recent decision of the state's bored of education to remove evolution
from the formal curriculum.  Their attitude is best expressed by a saying
that appears on the Web site of the Kansas Association of Biology
Teachers, a quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky (whose importance I am 
embarrassed to say I have no idea) - "Nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of evolution".  As one teacher said, "We want to teach
good biology.  In order to do that, we have to teach evolution."  It would
be nice if the NIH and BIO released statements of support for the Kansas
teachers.

    And to fight back even harder, the biology teachers, in conjunction
with the history teachers, should teach the evolution of creationism, given
that creationist myths are very evolutionary.  They could start with the
creation stories of ancient Sumeria and Egypt, which Babylonians evolved
into their creation stories, which Hebrews evolved into their creation
stories, which Christians added upon for their creation stories.  Then to
illustrate the concept of independent but parallel evolution, they could
teach the development of creation stories in Asia, the Americas and the
rest of Africa (and the feminists can teach how all of these mysogynist
creation myths evolved from even earlier goddess creationist systems).
And the flaws of such systems.  For example, the process of pollenization
requires plants and animals to be created/evolved at the same time, not
plants first and animals on a following "day".  The latter is biological
nonsense of those who assume that plants are not alive.